§ The House then resolved itself into a Committee on the Marriages Bill.
§ On Clause 21,
The Bishop of Exeterobjected to the form of declaration described in the clause, as not setting forth that the marriage contract was of a religious nature, and indissoluble in respect to its obligations. Hitherto, marriage had always been considered as a sacred and religious ceremony; and at the time of the Usurpation a most solemn formula was established, which was to the following effect:—"I, A. B., do hereby, in the presence of God, the searcher of all hearts, take thee, C. D., to be my wedded wife, and I do solemnly promise, before God and these witnesses, to be unto thee a loving and faithful husband." A similar form was adopted still by the Quakers and other sects He was of opinion that nothing ought to be done to reduce the sanctity of that ceremony; but he feared that the laxity of the proposed law would reduce it to the same state as it was in France. Words 605 ought to be introduced into the clause to express the sacredness of the contract, and that it was indissoluble in its nature. He therefore proposed to substitute, for the declaration in the clause, the following declaration:—"In the presence of Almighty God and these witnesses I., M., do take thee, N., to be my wedded wife, to live together according to God's holy ordinance; and I do here, in the presence of God, solemnly promise before these witnesses to be to thee a loving and faithful husband during life."
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to the amendment. There was a clause in the Bill already providing for the religious solemnization of the contract; and if the amendment were carried, the effect would be to establish two religious forms.
§ Viscount Melbournesaid, the amendment would destroy the very object of the Bill, which was to provide relief for a class of persons in this country who considered marriage in the light of a civil contract only. The declaration was simply to inform the State what marriages were contracted, and by whom, without reference to any religious ceremony.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, the words of the clause, as they stood at present, did not seem to imply any religious ceremony, which they ought to do. He should, therefore, support the amendment.
§ The Committee divided on the question that the original declaration in the clause be omitted, when there appeared—Content 19; Not Content 15: Majority 4.
§ On the question that the declaration proposed by the Bishop of Exeter be inserted,
Lord Ellenboroughprotested against the declaration introduced by the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter), as being likely to be productive of great mischief to society generally, and especially to the Church.
The Bishop of Exetergave credit to the noble Baron for a sincere attachment to the Church, but he thought him mistaken in estimating the consequences of the amendment. He (the Bishop of Exeter) believed that there was a very large body of persons not connected with the Establishment who would not scruple to make the proposed declaration. As to any mischiefs which might result from it, he was of opinion that the most mischief would accrue 606 from adopting any proposition which would tend to reduce the sacred character of the marriage contract.
§ The Earl of Riponentirely disagreed with the right rev. Prelate as to the propriety of introducing the words he had proposed, as they would give rise to great inconvenience, and would in fact most materially affect those very persons for whose relief the clause was intended.
§ The Lord Chancellorwas satisfied that the declaration would be destructive of the great object in view, as it went to make the contract—which was only intended as evidence of a contract for civil purposes, without disturbing the present different modes of celebrating marriage according to each person's religious views,—they went to make it a religious contract,—a proposition which was utterly inconsistent with the object of the Bill.
§ Viscount Melbournecalled upon their Lordships, before they divided, to reconsider this question. Indeed, as these words were likely to be fatal to the Bill, to counteract the object with which it had been introduced, and to prevent the good which it was intended to effect, he could not refrain from asking their Lordships to postpone the consideration of the right rev. Prelate's proposition until there should be a fuller attendance. With that view he should move that the House do resume.
§ The Committee divided on Lord Melbourne's amendment:—Content 15; Not Content 17: Majority 2.
§ The Bishop of Exeter's declaration was added to the clause, and the clause agreed to.
§ The remaining clauses of the Bill were agreed to. The House resumed.
| List of the NOT-CONTENTS on the first Division. | |
| Lord Chancellor | Liverpool |
| DUKE. | LORDS. |
| Wellington | Ellenborough |
| EARLS. | Fitzgerald |
| Ripon | Plunkett |
| Shaftesbury | Gage |
| Rosslyn | Melbourne |
| EARLS. | Holland |
| Bradford | BISHOP. |
| Minto | Bristol |
| List of the CONTENTS. | |
| DUKE. | Harrowby |
| Cumberland | Mansfield |
| MARQUESS. | Doncaster (Buccleuch) |
| Cholmondeley | LORDS. |
| Bute | Carbery |
| EARLS. | Calthorpe |
| Abingdon | Sondes |
| Brownlow |
| ARCHBISHOPS. | Lincoln |
| Canterbury | Gloucester |
| Armagh | Oxford |
| Hereford | |
| BISHOPS. | Exeter |
| Cork |
§ The Earl of Doncaster did not vote on the second division.